We Trust the Government We Don’t Trust

American’s trust in government has been in decline since the Kennedy/Johnson administration according to Pew Research.  Yet we seem to ask more and more of it.

Trust is more likely to occur in local communities because we tend to trust information we take from direct experience.  We relax a bit when dealing with people we know or with people whose reciprocal expectations match our own.  In countries with small, relatively homogeneous populations, government can successfully play a larger role in daily life.  The Scandinavian countries, so often cited as a model by liberals, are good examples.  Each has a population smaller than New York State that is over 90% native born.

The US, on the other hand, has a population that includes over 40 million immigrants, closing in on 15% of the total.  If we add first generation Americans, we have about a quarter of the population whose reciprocal expectations are not aligned with more established citizens.  The last time we found ourselves in a similar demographic mix was shortly after my grandparents immigrated here in the 1910’s and 20’s (from what was then a s***hole country).  What followed was a backlash and, in 1924, Congressional legislation to limit immigration, the remnants of which form the basis of policy today.

The social mechanisms that have enabled us to assimilate have been left behind as technology – from ATM’s, smart gas pumps, and self-checkout at Wegmans to video games and social media – replaces person-to-person social interaction.  People from different walks of life simply don’t talk with one another as we once did. 

In parallel, we have observed a breakdown of trust in institutions.  We stopped trusting our government when government stopped being trustworthy -- during the Vietnam War and Watergate.  We stopped respecting social institutions -- political parties, organized religion, national media -- when they stopped meeting our needs.  And, we stopped trusting people with different political beliefs when their politics became more extreme. 

So, at a time when we need to learn to engage our neighbors, become more welcoming to immigrants and litigate our differences locally, the social fabric necessary to our success has been torn.  At a time when more of our resources should be directed within our communities, Washington is in a pitched battle over how our money should be distributed.

And, let’s not overlook how money affects this paradigm.  The lion’s share of our taxes is not collected by our local communities or state government but rather by Washington.  It takes money to administer laws and enforce them.  So, the rules made in Washington affect us more than those made locally.  We can see the impact in our schools and our transportation infrastructure.  State and local governments can’t do much without federal support. 

So, the cycle reinforces itself.  More money goes to Washington; more of the laws that affect our local communities are made there; and, we ask more of Washington than of local governments that could be more responsive to our needs.  By paying taxes and demanding programs of our Congressional representatives, by asking them to legislate right and wrong, we express our trust in the federal government implicitly.

Isn’t it ironic?

WHO WILL LEAD?

The Demise of the Big 3 is Good for our Community

Last week’s announcement of the acquisition of Xerox by Fuji, Ltd. is another nail in the coffin of Rochester’s Big 3.  I would contend that they have been long dead and good riddance.

I don’t mean to minimize the suffering of those who may lose their jobs as a result.  Nor, am I ignoring the emotional impact on a community that long identified with our erstwhile leading employers and benefited from their contribution to our community. 

I am simply saying that these events over the last 25 years or so are part of the natural order.  Just as the Bronze Age gave way to the Iron Age, companies come and companies go.  Both Xerox and Kodak were part of the Nifty 50 highflying stocks in the early 1970’s, a list that includes many companies that are long gone.  Those that have survived, including GE, IBM, and AT&T, have done so by morphing into something else.  A time traveler from the 70’s wouldn’t recognize them today.

I am tempted to quote Michael Douglas’ “greed is good” speech from the movie “Wall Street.”  But, the last time I did that I was buried by hate-email.  I could also quote its counterpart in economic theory, Schumpeter’s “Theory of Creative Destruction.”  But, that would put you to sleep. Instead I’ll simply point out that the demise of the Big 3 is not one of the Seven Deadly Sins and, moreover, we are complicit. 

As a consuming society, we have explicitly expressed a preference for email over the post office and Netflix over Blockbuster – to say nothing of the number of businesses that have been disrupted by the Internet from travel agents to Big Box retail.  No one looks back and mourns the loss of jobs from those transitions.  We’re too busy consuming what they sell.

And, so, the Big 3 are no longer Rochester’s biggest employers because their customers now prefer the better products and services of others. 

For the most part, the impact of the Big 3 on the local economy has been gradual.  The move of Xerox’ headquarters, the big layoffs at Kodak, and the sale of Bausch & Lomb occurred over a 30 year period.  And, what has happened in the wake of those activities?

Entrepreneurs have founded companies, like Conserve, eHealth Technologies and SunCommon NY, which have grown quickly, providing jobs and healthy working environments.  In short, our community has become less dependent on large mega-corporations and thrives on fuel provided by smaller companies with local owners. 

Local business owners are more likely to be good citizens of our community.  They support local charities, create jobs locally, and ask less of taxpayers in the form of infrastructure and tax breaks. 

We -- their neighbors, customers and stakeholders – should stop mourning the loss of a bygone era and begin to identify with the community we have become.

Are Pro Sports Teams a Public Good?

ROCHESTER'S FRONTIER FIELD,

One of America’s founders, our second president John Adams, used the Latin phrase Res Publica (literally Public Thing) to describe the need for government to support the common good in order to ensure Americans would live in strong communities.

Yet, it’s hard to imagine that even someone as visionary as Adams could have anticipated the importance of professional sports to 21^st Century American society much less think of pro sports as Res Publica. But, that’s where we are.  Medium sized cities like Charlotte and Jacksonville have elevated their status by attracting NFL franchises.  Those cities have committed time, energy and capital to the effort to attract their teams and would work just as hard to keep them if the billionaires who own those franchises threaten to leave. 

I recall attending a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Miami where the management of the Florida Marlins made their case for public financing of a new stadium.  It was the midst of the Great Recession and many in attendance were struggling to keep their doors open.  Concurrently, the federal government was considering a bailout of the nation’s largest banks.  During the Q&A, one business owner expressed the view that a professional baseball team shouldn’t need a bailout from Miami’s taxpayers.  His comment opened a floodgate.  The Marlins executives never knew what hit them.

Nevertheless, the city and state government supported the team’s owners and they got their stadium supported in part by public financing.  Now, they play their home games at a beautiful stadium and have the third lowest attendance in Major League Baseball. 

Hardly seems worth it. 

Lop a few zeroes off Miami’s scenario of a few years ago and you can imagine the pressure felt by New York’s Monroe County Executive Cheryl Dinolfo.  The county’s largest city, Rochester, has earned a reputation for embracing minor league sports.  In addition to the baseball’s Red Wings, we have hockey’s minor league Americans as well as professional soccer and lacrosse teams.  Collectively, their presence creates a public good.

That public good is in jeopardy.  Our soccer team is sitting this season out; and, its owners are at war with the city that is its landlord.  Ditto our baseball team whose franchisor this week threatened the “nuclear option” of cancelling the franchise, effectively putting the team out of business, if reasonable lease terms were not agreed to by the county.

The question for our political leaders, and by extension voters, is whether to finance the teams’ deficits and bear the brunt of public ownership of their stadiums. 

It’s tempting to blame the politicians.  (No one likes politicians anyway.)  However, I am more inclined to point my finger at the teams’ owners.  The teams are capitalist enterprises whose profits, should they be earned, go into the pockets of their investors.  And, like any capitalist enterprise, they should bear the risk of any losses.

Ms. Dinolfo ran for office on a promise not to raise taxes and has a budget, 85% of which is the result of unfunded mandates from the state.  I admire her efforts to hold the line on behalf of taxpayers. 

I’m getting worn out paying New York’s taxes anyway.

WHO WILL LEAD?